53

Just a note, I've been getting some articles published at Blogcritics.org. They're all stuff I've already printed here, but here is my own personal archive nonetheless. So far its been a very fun experience, and I've got to chat with a bunch of really cool, intelligent, dedicated bloggers.

52 - The Squid and the Whale review

The Squid and the Whale begins with a family tennis match. Father and older son play on one team, mother and younger son on the other. The children are simply trying to enjoy themselves, but between the parents exists a tense competition, their litany of matrimonial problems shimmering underneath the surface. Both parents coach their kids to exploit the weaknesses of the other, drawing battle lines for an upcoming conflict that could explode into existence at any minute. Like all wars, the innocent victims will be the biggest losers.

It comes as no surprise that writer/director Noah Baumbach experienced the devastating dissolution of his own parent’s marriage. Throughout the film, he skillfully hits all the right notes of a messy divorce, especially those where the parents use their children against each other in the same way two warring nations would drop atomic weapons on each other’s cities.

Walt Berkman (Jesse Eisenberg) represents Baumbach, 17 years, growing up in Brooklyn in 1986. His divorcing parents are writers whose literary success only serves to provide more competition. He takes the side of his father Bernard (Jeff Daniels), a bombastic intellectual who takes palatable joy in his belief that anyone who doesn’t read dozens of classic novels or see obscure French films is a total idiot. Bernard pressures his sons so much that Walt sputters out detailed literary critiques of books that he couldn’t possibly enjoy or fully understand. When Walt wins the school talent show for song writing, he neglects to mention that Pink Floyd sung the song first.

Younger son Frank (Owen Kline), sides with his mother Joan (Laura Linney). Frank craftily takes revenge on his father by declaring his intent to become a tennis pro, much like the one Joan is dating. Nothing seems more horrifying to Bernard than a son who foregoes Charles Dickens and Franz Kafka for tennis, except maybe one that prefers the bold promiscuity of his mother to the emotional vacancy of his father.

When the parents split, Bernard moves across town, and angrily insists that the boys refer to his house as "their" house. Walt and Frank are both stumbling into sexuality, but both parents are too busy with their own new lovers to pay much notice, being more interested in which child supports whom. Notice how Jeff Daniles deftly cultivates resentment in his son by casually mentioning that Joan had an affair, or how Joan can only mumble weak excuses in response.

Baumbach recognizes how divorce can negatively affect the relationships of their children. Bernard tells Walt that he made a mistake in sticking with one woman, causing Walt to promptly terminate his own relationship with a sweet girl who treats him nicely. Even worse, Frank begins experimenting with sexuality in a way that might be unprintable in a major newspaper, except to say that expulsion from school wouldn’t be unwarranted. Neither parent means to harm their children, but their selfishness ensures that they do, and badly.

If this sounds like a depressing film, it is, but not in the way one would expect. It is often very funny, and savagely satirizes the vacant superiority of many uber-intellectuals, as well as the naïve attempts at splitting up a family with no problems. But after the credits roll, we’re left with a lingering despair at the hopelessness of the situation, but can take solace in the knowledge that the boys will grow up, their parents will settle down, and life will move on.

4 out of 5

51 - Derailed review

Note to the filmmakers of Derailed: the Every-man hero is only sympathetic when he falls into a hole, not when he digs the hole himself. Charles Schine(Clive Owen) seems like a decent enough man, but every choice he makes spectacularly detonates in his face. We’re on his side at first, but by the fifth time Charles has a critical lapse in judgement, our faith in him has disintegrated, along with our patience.

The film starts promisingly enough. Charles, a middle class Chicago banker (with Clive Owen’s Brit accent), meets Lucinda (Jennifer Anniston, trying too hard to get away from Rachel) on the train to work. They hit it off, even though Charles has a wife and extremely sick daughter at home. Charles and his wife haven’t been getting along well, while Lucinda and her husband rarely speak. The scenes where they reluctantly but dangerously connect could put us off to Charles, but instead it appears to be an understandable mistake (the last one he’ll make in the film).

They rent a fleabag motel room to seal the deal, but the film switches tracks when LaRouche (Vincent Cassel), a vile thug, robs them both and rapes Lucinda. After he leaves, Charles suggests they call the police, but Lucinda stubbornly refuses. She doesn’t want her husband to know, although Charles’ face suggests that he is aware hiding this sort of thing can'’ work out.

So why doesn’t he call the cops anyway? Does it seem like a good idea for Charles to use the money for his daughter’s kidney medicine to pay off LaRouche when he comes snooping around the house? Could Charles at least go buy his own gun for protection? Whatever Charles should do, he glumly does the opposite, though a phone call could end the madness at any time.

Owen does what he can to make Charles likeable, but the script works feverishly against him. It even relies on one of those Clever Bad Guy Schemes where the hero must do exactly what they planned, or the evil lattice would break apart. Sprinkled into the already derivative mix are several scenes where Charles awkwardly stands around, trying to hide a secret from the cops, his wife, his coworkers, etc.

Derailed has good performances, and scores a few points at the end with some bloody revenge, though even those scenes come at the cost of character continuity. Any thriller where the audience contemplates whether or not the Every-man hero has earned his misfortune will find itself plunging off the tracks. Which reminds me, I would like to suggest that a film with a title like Derailed should be a guaranteed masterpiece from the start, because the invitation to write a negative pun gets more tempting than an eager and willing Jennifer Anniston. And that’s a lot.

2 out of 5

50

As 24’s fifth season enters its final stretch, the nerve-wracking thrills continue to stack up and the body count spirals out of control. President Logan’s secret has become known to many, and those closest to him (Mike Novick, Vice President Hal Gardner, his wife Martha) are becoming more suspicious with each digital tick of the clock.



Jack Bauer finally manages to meet with Secretary of Defense James Heller and present the recording that incriminates Logan as the terrorist mastermind. But surprise, Heller ties up Jack and Audrey, arguing that it would be better to force Logan to resign quietly than to permanently destroy the Presidency. Meanwhile, Chole gets tricked into revealing Jack’s location at the airport, and everyone and their mother gets suspicious of Logan when he calls off CTU and sends a "covert" team to "arrest" Jack for David Palmer’s assassination, which he was already cleared of roughly 14 hours ago.



Viewers who feared a dramatic shift in Logan’s personality post-revelation need not have feared, as was proven by Heller’s blunt scolding. Logan’s jittery excuses about what he needed to do are characteristically evasive and pathetic. His weak pleas for Heller to look the other way provide a brief moment of satisfaction and victory for 24 fans, but of course things do not continue to go so smoothly.



Christopher Henderson has definitely earned his place alongside Nina Myers, Victor Drazen, Ramone Salazar, Stephen Saunders, and Habib Marwan as a great 24 foot soldier villain. Henderson would most easily be comparable to Nina Myers; he worked with Jack at CTU, is able to resist just about any level of torture, kills quickly and without remorse, and has personally murdered at least one person close to Jack. Unlike Nina, he isn’t a sociopath, works directly for the President, and has a Y chromosome. Peter Weller gives the character a deadly edge, with a rough, machinelike voice and narrow, vicious stares that remind us vividly our hero. And like his predecessors, he manages to slip through Jack’s clutches every time. This episode marks the third time that Jack has massacred an entire team of Henderson’s mercs while Henderson slips out the back.



Has anyone noticed the change in tone the music has undergone the past few episodes? During the action sequences, the operatic tone has been traded for one that resembles a techno James Bond mix. Not since the first episode have they used music that isn’t operatic thriller material, so the change comes across as slightly refreshing, if not one I hope is temporary.

Question of the week: Was Jack right to exchange the evidence for Audrey’s life? The image of Audrey standing between Jack and Henderson, barely able to speak as she quickly bleeds to death, was gruesome and haunting even by 24’s standards.






Audrey pleads with Jack to ignore her and focus on the evidence, but he relents to Henderson’s demands and surrenders the one thing that could expose Logan for the traitor he is. Often times, 24’s intense moments are born out of the character’s need to make devastating decisions in the blink of an eye, and this was one of the hardest yet. While we may be in the final stretch, there are still seven hours left, and a lot can happen in Jack Bauer’s day.

49

Post 29 has gotten an usually deep, albeit late response. It possibly even had a hand in one of Scott Cawelti's articles in the WCF Courier. To respond to the responses:

Ramin Honary's response asserts that Republicans may be happier right now because they are the ones in power. He contends that Republicans are more openly hostile to Democrats (I have found the opposite to be true), that neither side cares much about what the other has to say (unfortunately true), that Bush sucks (I'd give him a C or C+), and that religious people profit from "ignorance is bliss"(a subject I don't even want to touch).

Tom Slife's response takes a very different course, challenging the study itself and asserting that most people don't even really know what happiness is. He says security and contentment do not equal happiness, and cites his parent's relationship as his own proof of this. Tom more or less says the key to happiness is love. He never directly disputes the assertion that Republicans are more happy than Democrats, just that he doubts these people are really that happy at all.

My response to all of it: I think the poll is somewhat shaky in that the variety of options is fairly low. It does not account for people who are extremely unhappy, nor does it have a spot for people who aren't sure or feel like they are in the middle. I don't think Republicans are happier overall because their party is in power, nor do I think Democrats are much sadder(most of the Democrats I know seem energized by their hatred of Bush). Unless you are making a lot of money or you or someone you know are involved in the Iraq war somehow, I don't think Bush has done much to affect most American's lives.

I think love is key to happiness, though not the only key. I have heard many times that marriages often fail because of money, which Tom writes off as much ado about nothing. When I think of my own girlfriend now, the thought of marrying her and not being able to provide her with all the stupid stones she wants actually makes me feel sick. Security may not be the only key to happiness, but I would argue that it is crucial, and that even with true love you would want physical safety, nice possessions (if applicable), whatever.

Let me assume for a second that the poll is accurate. Why would Republicans be happier? I would like to say that Republicans (ordinary citizens, anyway) place a greater emphasis on morality and living life the way society demands it, which makes the likely hood of sham marriages and messy divorces less likely. Religion would likely play a key role in this, as the number of openly atheist Republicans I have met is very low, even though I was once one myself. I must not that I would have no trouble finding scores of Democrats who would staunchly defend their morality, and I can think of many Republicans I know that have the morals of a hill of fireants.



For a much more fun poll, check this one out.